In my opinion, one of the big problems with the paper is its total lack of
locality information. The stratigraphic information or complete lack
thereof, is appalling. Quoting from the paper itself:

"The only stratigraphic information that we have is the matrix around the
specimen. This indicates a location in the Gobi Desert of either Mongolia
or China."

The paper attempts to construct a new genus of ankylosaur. It is more
difficult to make this case when you cannot pinpoint its stratigraphic
location. If it is found in a stratigraphic layer that is much younger or
older than where you typically find other Mongolian ankylosaurs, the
argument for a new taxon becomes stronger. As it stands we have no idea
where this thing comes from (might as well be the moon). Is it not
possible that it is an ontogenetic stage of or different variation of some
other already described taxon? Again good stratigraphic data could help
falsify something?!

Ok..onto the issue of it possibly/likely being a hot specimen and whether
it should be published or not. I am an ex-cop and if this was a court of
law and this specimen was attempted to be entered as evidence, the judge
would throw it out before the jury could even see it. When evidence is
entered in a court of law it has to have a proper chain of evidence. A
police officer collects evidence at an arrest or crime scene. It is
bagged, sealed, initialed, dated, etc then turned over to the evidence
officer. The evidence officer repeats the process and places it in a
secure locker that only he/she has a key to. Then the evidence officer
removes the object and takes it to the State Crime lab. An officer at the
crime lab takes the evidence, signs for it, dates it, etc and then tests
it (fingerprints, drugs, DNA, or whatever). When the Crime lab officer is
done, he/she rebags the evidence, initials it, dates it, seals it, etc
then signs the report. The evidence officer picks up the
evidence, repeating the process then takes it to the States Attorney who
is prosecuting the case, who in turn repeats the chain. Then the States
Attorney enters it into evidence for the court with a proper chain of
evidence, with the arresting officer, evidence officer, and crime lab
officer all testifying to its integrity. There is no taint of illegality
or doubt in this process.

In my mind this is analogous to the real scientific process that should go
on for all peer reviewed articles. A legitimate, legal specimen with solid
locality data with no taint whatsoever. Of course the scientific
community should demand that all specimens are legally obtained, because
the taint of illegal specimens raises doubt over the whole process. We
call it fruits of the poison tree in cop-land. Hope this puts it in
perspective.